I watched the Democratic Debate on DVR delay Thursday night. After about 45 minutes I felt like bludgeoning myself to death with a hammer. Oh sure, I thought by watching I'd perhaps learn something new about the candidates or at least find some humorous material for future column fodder, but after watching it to conclusion (or at least until my DVR cut out since the debate ran longer than the allotted 2 hours), the only thought in my mind was, "I missed the Office for this?"
My irritation with the debate was more with the format than the content. CNN's structure of the debate was very sloppy and poorly managed, leaving many of the candidates standing by idly while the Big Three (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) tossed political hand grenades at each other. Questions seemed to fall into one of three categories: Hillary questions, Obama questions, and miscellaneous questions to throw Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson a bone. I think Dennis Kucinich's notepad was actually a pocket sudoku puzzle book since he had plenty of time to finish one, perhaps even two puzzles during the debate.
Because of the poorly executed format, it felt more like a panel discussion on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room than a presidential debate, and Wolf Blitzer treated it as such. Every time Wolf stopped the process to ask each candidate to give a straight yes or no answer to a question was extremely annoying. He was either trying to provide fodder for political bloggers to search out contradictory statements or elevate himself as the spokesman for the common man by forcing these mean old politicians to give a straight answer for once. And speaking of annoying, Wolf, it's time make a decision about the beard. You've been sporting George Michael stubble for far too long. Either grow a real beard or shave it off.
Winner of the debate? I'm going with an upset. For me the winner was Joe Biden, who despite his position in the shadows at the far end of the stage probably scored the most points with his humorous demeanor and straightforward responses. He seemed much more relaxed and casual than his fellow party members and seemed quite adept at answering questions directly without turning each prompt into a platform to thrust another sword into Hillary's back.
Barrack Obama also handled himself well, sparring nicely with Ms. Clinton on numerous occasions and going on the defensive of his own policies. Of the people on the stage he probably has the best speaking voice, so he at least sounded presidential from an aesthetic standpoint.
Debate losers? Hillary, just on the grounds that it was hers to lose. As she asserted during the debate, everyone is attacking her because she is the frontrunner, but she said little to pull away from the pack. Her performance reminded me of her husband's re-election debate techniques versus Bob Dole in 96, except in Bill's case he was sitting on a comfortable lead and really didn't need to mix it up with Senator Dole to win re-election. With a booming economy and a high approval rating, President Clinton could've ate pudding during those debates and still won. Hillary on the other hand faces stiff criticism as the favored target of both the Republican and Democratic candidates, so she can ill afford to sit back and eat pudding and expect an easy waltz to the nomination.
John Edwards also probably lost ground as well since most of his time was spent throwing negative shots at Hillary. Edwards did enough mudslinging that Obama didn't really have to do much of it himself (that's not to say he didn't get his digs in on Hillary), so as a result Obama benefited from not pouring it on as thick. Edwards is doing a good job of pulling Hillary back to the pack, but he's doing little to improve his own position.
I'd also throw Kucinich into the loser category because of the "isn't he cute? he thinks he belongs up there!" treatment from the moderators. Dennis Kucinich might as well have been sitting at the kids table as he said 10 words during the entire first hour. Literally ten words, I counted them.
The other loser? Me for watching it. Now I have to watch The Office online, and the video stream at NBC is often jerky with numerous stops during the playback.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 87
I watched also, and was immensely disappointed. Obama pontificated right on cue. Hillary dodged and weaved, with Edwards screaming "what about me?" at the end of the caboose.
Biden was kind of funny, but didn't have the sizzle or the steak.
Was Kucinich even in the room, or did they forget to give him a booster seat so he could see over the podium?
As for who won and who lost, the loser wasn't Hillary and the post-debate commentary make me think that was the general opinion that she accomplished what she had to accomplish in this debate, she didn't fumble and didn't lose and for her that was a win in this debate.
Got to get a transcript because unless I heard wrong Obama did a little flip flopping of his own, Not that there is anything new in that but it wasn't on the flip-flop I already knew about, which the other candidates have not brought up. I still suspect the reason he didn't show up for the Iran resolution vote was that since he sponsored a nearly identical resolution way back in March, he couldn't vote against it without running the risk of being accused of flip-flipping. Of course, criticizing Hillary for voting for the more recent resolution amounts to a flip-flop in my opinion.
Even if I wasn't a Hillary supporter, I would have been glad to hear the booing when that greeted Obama and Edwards when they tried to resume the Hillary bashing that the pundits were looking for. Whether, the pundits take the hint and stop trying to turning the debates into a boxing match remains to be seen. I want to hear candidates state their positions on the issues and let me decide which one is best.
One thing I wish is that debate moderators had a cutoff button. Gentle hints obviously don't work and if I recall, lights and buzzers don't either.
As I stated above, my biggest issue was the execution of the debate. You can't have 7 people on the stage and not adhere to some sort of structured discussion. The 2nd tier candidates basically stood there twiddling their thumbs for the first half hour while Hillary, Obama, and Edwards traded shots. I figure if you are going to invite them, might as well include them in the discussion.
As for the debate, I have a problem with the general debate format altogether. I thought it was interesting you kept referring to Hillary's "performance", because these debates are exactly that. We don't really learn anything about the candidates other than their ability to prepare to be on camera and remember their lines. In that sense, Hillary is basically the equivalent of Ian Ziering. To use another analogy, the election process has become akin to a football game. The sides scout each other, looking for weaknesses they can exploit. If one team jumps out to an early lead, the goal is simply not to screw up. You turn to your running game and protect the ball. This works great in the world of sports, but how the hell does it help U.S. citizens decide who is going to run their country for the next 4 years?
Let's save the frivolity for the sitcoms.
I was able to do this as I knew that you, the intrepid reporter, would be eyeballing the candidates and give me a full and comprehensive report in the morning.
As you have met my expectations, I am registering you as my official political news source.
Obama lost a little ground flip flopping on issues like giving Drivers licenses to illegals.
Edwards wasnt that terrific spending most of his time slamming Hillary and not getting his message out.
Thanks for the insight.
As for The Office I dont watch it. Good luck in finding a copy.
Over on his website is a breakdown of each candidate's screentime, and Dennis clocked in at just under six minutes for the entire debate. That speaks poorly of CNN's handling of the debate since they should've done a better job of distributing the discussion.
Alternate universe? What does the ice cream taste like?
Clinton was reported to get "her mojo" back, but she disgusts me to no end. The three contenders started out with a slug fest, but then were called on their behavior and calmed down after the first ten minutes. I don't think Clinton weakened Obama. She just regained her strength. Edwards was boo'd for slamming Clinton, so I guess the contenders "got the message", no one wants it.
Seriously though, what does the ice cream taste like? Is chocolate really vanilla?
To learn about what a candiate would do as president, look at what they have been doing before throwing their hat, or their husband, into the ring. How have the Senators voted? How has the Representative voted? How did those who have been governor govern their state? Did they leave it in better or worse shape? It's not what they say... it's what they DO that matters. The rest is entertainment, pitiful and manipulated, but entertainment.
Anyone who uses the main stream media to find out anything about the candidates IS in an alternate universe. Those corporations are backing their race horse has hard as they can. News has nothing to do with the truth.
> the winner was Joe Biden, who despite his position in
> the shadows at the far end of the stage probably scored
> the most points with his humorous demeanor and
> straightforward responses.
I agree with you.
Biden is a competant, honest leader who takes the point
in offering detailed plans with bipartisan support that
are well thought out before most of the other candidates
can speak their doubletalk about an issue.
Biden is straightforward, and has integrity and
I would love to see Jow Biden & Chris Dodd in the White
House.
I think people who actually see the debate and
understand what is being said, and how would see
that. That is the reason I wrote an article that
has a pointer to the whole unedited raw video of
the Las Vegas Democratic debate here:
Latest Presidential Debates, Dem. 11-15 Las Vegas
People need to not look at these debates as some kind of entertainment like a boxing match. The country can do without voters who think the Presidency is like the baseball hall of fame, the most ruthless person wins.
The question of example in another debate was set up to Hillary Clinton by using without attribution her husband's word that he thought there was a time and place for torture. When she answered differently from her husband then she was attacked by the announcer. That is pure sleaze in my eyes, and this should be attacked and unacceptable by the people and the broadcasters punished.
What is going on with this country?
I'm just throwing this out for bait, since my ultimate goal is for this thread to explode into an all out political flame war.
you need a little more kindling than that chris
It's sad... just sad I tell ya.
How the heck are we going to win the White House with this pack of clowns?
Hillary looked great, she was holding the line well. Obama did what
Obama does try to sound good and use big words. Edwards is getting
close to having to quit so he was doing one last flurry of attacks.
Kucinich put forth his points better than ever. Richardson wanted to
look energetic and talked and talked everytime he got the chance.
Biden and Dodd both looked good, but especially Biden.
Biden kept repeating over and over his relevant experience and
what he has done with his time in the Senate. He put forth a
plan with Iran, as he did with Iraq, the first bipartisan plan,
detailed and with a hope of support from moderates on both
sides.
Spartan, I don't know what your beef is. This is a mass
market society, not everything thinks what you do. If I'm
not mistaken, tell me, but aren't you the one that said 911
was an inside job?
I watched from start to finish, and Hillary played defense for most of the debate. She wasn't out there to win...........she was out there to keep the marauders at bay.
Obama sounded good, but the agenda he pushes is just way too Left Wing for America's taste. He uses big words, but when you break them down, he's not representative of the voting populace. He either just doesn't care what a huge chunk of America thinks, or he's a slick used car salesman. He needs new consultants to point him towards Pennsylvania Avenue. He's going in the opposite direction of that goal right now.
Edwards is on his last legs, and that was obvious. He's always been a charlatan, but this debate brought that out more than all the rest.
Kucinich...................hmmmm, what can I say? He's funny, but that's only because he makes the top-tier candidates so damn uncomfortable. When you're the only person in the race that truly represents the crackpot Leftist vote, you can't possibly appeal to more than your rabid core of kooky constituents. He represents the Unicorn and Rainbows vote extremely well.
Q : " Who said we were actually going to have an election, Bret?"
A : The Constitution.
I do not like Obama or Edwards because both in my eyes have not paid their dues, and are too slick and vapid.
I can handle Hillary, but I really like Biden and Dodd.
Kucinich I agree with ... wait another 150 years though, I'll vote for
him then maybe. I thought Richardson was the comic relief. There
were some points where he did not even seem to know what he
was saying, but he is very careful to be seen as nice, jovial but
serious when he says it, as much as a Latino Pillsbury Dough Boy
can look.
On the Republican side there is no one I really like much. Romney
and Guiliani have no character and are empty shirts. I can stand
McCain. I do not care for Thompson.
I used to like Tommy Thompson, and I would have voted for him.
I would also like to hear what Bloomberg has to say.
Hillary was still stinging from her "FakeQuestionGate" fiasco from Iowa. I'm sure no one was allowed to explore that one too much, per the hastily put together rules.
She talked loudly, she garnered the cheers, but she got a few sneers too.............especially from the focus groups polled afterwards.
Honestly, I wanted to see what her opponents had to say about her pure fakery.
Like you, I kinda like Biden. He's experienced at taking the Liberal side of every issue, including foreign affairs...........which is a dubious distinction in itself. Most Libs don't even know there is a world outside of San Fran, or the Upper East Side.
However, he does think outside the box, and he does have a sense of humor. Both unique characteristics for anyone Left of Center.
With the Dems a fractured party (and Bloomberg now looking to enter the race and fracture it further), and the Republicans not attacking each other, I see dark days ahead for Hillary. We tend to eat our own..........as was on display in Vegas the other night. The Republicans don't make a habit of that behavior. That's one good reason why they've held the White House for every term since 1980, minus the Clinton years.
To me this is not an issue in the least, at least against Hillary. Bush planted what's his name in the reporters to get his points across. Spin and propanda are the world's problems, and Hillary is just doing what everyone else is doing. Calling it pure fakery is dramatic to me, that is what politics is for all of them now, it is just the degree and whether they get caught or not. I have to assume they are all doing this, so many the ones who do not get caught are the most slick and the best liars.
I can see Hillary being an OK president, and almost any of them would be fine with me after what I have seen in the last 8 years.
I love Biden. He is a human being, and it would be nice to have one with integrity in the White House for a change. It has been a really long time. Dodd too as stiff as he is, he is a good man.
I think I can do without the embedded attacks on the left in your rhetoric, but it does tell me where you are coming from.
The Republicans will start attacking each other soon enough. Frankly, they have to hang together because they best of them in my view, Tommy Thompson, is out of the race. I will work hard against the fascist global corporatist types that seek to outsource everything in government. The contractors in the military and law enforcement, or homeland security are out of control and a danger to the Constitution the way I see it.
This is all Rumsfeld's doing, and it all needs to be undone. As with the out of control corporatism.
The problem is that the Republicans as a constituency are focused and coherent, and Democrats are ignorant and selfish and whiny, as an unwashed mass group. I miss the left and I miss humble people trying to build a coalition as opposed to angry idiots marching aroung trying to attack the establishment who do not know what do to fix things, they are just mad.
Somehow I just can't see Obama planting fake questions in any crowd. He just seems far too genuine............plus, he answers a lot of questions on the spur of the moment. Some of them turn out wrong, and he has to do a retraction. But at least he's not afraid to put his quick mind and rapid responses out there.
Hillary isn't that sharp. Her genuine-ness (is that a word?) has always been in question, and this latest flap does nothing to help her. You may think this "FakeQuestionGate" situation isn't a big deal, but you aren't an Iowa voter. They take this kind of breach of trust seriously. That's why Hillary has fallen back to the pack in recent days in most of the Iowa polls. The other Dems probably do this question-planting too, so they weren't eager to attack her on it. However, I guarantee the Republican candidate will pin her ears to the wall on it, when the real campaigning begins. I don't think Hillary has any idea how much of a shit-storm is headed her way...........
The "corporatism" that you speak of is just the way things are done in DC. It has little to do with Democrat or Republican, and more to do with the enormous workload. No small government could possibly adhere to all the insane regulations that Congress pumps out each year. So in reality, they've legislated themselves plenty of work (and therefore jobs) for many, many years into the future. Personally, I think this is what prompted the "Contract with America" in 1993-94...........and the subsequent wins in Congress by the Republicans. Unfortunately, once this was forgotten by voters, government resumed its outrageous growth.
Bruce, one of Reagan's rules to other Republicans while campaigning was that you never speak ill of each other while on the campaign trail. For the most part, the discipline he laid down back in the mid-80's is still followed. Sure, some Republicans break the rule, but they are quickly reprimanded.............and fall back into line quite quickly. We need to learn this kind of discipline. It can't hurt, and might actually be a great thing - if we implement it.
Plus, it would silence the nutty Left. Silencing these political hacks is paramount, since they've cost us many, many elections in the past.
I don't watch the debates because they're a waste of time and energy. Nobody in them, other than candidates who cannot ever get the nomination, will ever tell the truth. Even if they were so bold as to be truthful, then neglect to mention that at best they can only "try" to do what they are talking about because of real world circumstances and other political considerations.
I may watch one debate between the final Democratic and Republican candidates, but will more probably read their position papers and look at their past records. In the end, of course, as I have to do most of the time now, I will hold my nose and vote for the one I think will do the least amount of harm. I would so love to vote "for" someone rather than "against" the other person.
" Since when has that silly old Constitution stopped Bush from doing anything?"
Unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Bush isn't running in the next election. Term limits keep him from doing so.
So now it looks like all you "I hate W" folks (like you, Spartan - I've been watching and reading your diatribes against Mr. Bush for a very long time) will have to aim your venom in another direction. It isn't about Mr. Bush any more. It's about a whole new crop of folks running for President. 2008 will be refreshing in one distinct way - the crop of Left Wing whiners will have to start singing a new song.
I just wonder if you're able to do so............
> will have to aim your venom in another direction.
Yes they will, just like the "I hate Bill Clinton" folks
did so rapidly in 2000! ;-)
More vitriol! More obfuscating partisan talking points!
Flame on! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
I don't watch The Office; sorry Chris.
From what has been described, this debate sounds like a soap-opera sequel to the previous Dem debate; which I did see. Namely, Hillary, Obama and Edwards getting most of the attention, Biden and Dodd as supporting characters, and Kucinich and Richardson being greatly ignored.
I guess I'll have to wait to make any poignant comments until after watching it. Thanks for the review; it gave me a preview for my upcoming viewing.
I think I'll wait and watch the cablevised version from CNN on my TV, because my computer is pretty lousy at downloading video and doesn't pause or rewind very well. I swear, sometimes I think my PC is still running on DOS 2.0.
I assume the press is calling Clinton, the winner because she didn't foul up. I think many have resigned themselves to the belief that she will be the nominee, and that it's her race to lose at this point. McCain is proof that it's dangerous to count chickens, though.
It's hard to know where to start with Obama. After talking down Clinton for a week about her issues with immigration, and her inability to give straight answers, he decides to replace her on YouTube with some of the most confusing answers I've ever heard in a debate. He had to know the question was coming. Wolf didn't make it any better, with the "This is the kind of question, that is available for a yes or no answer." The audience actually laughed at Obama's attempt to to give a straight answer. Obama - Losing Performance.
Edwards is watching Obama, be Edwards. I know that sounds confusing. But, I liked Edwards in the previous election cycle when everyone was pulling for Kerry. Now, Edwards is in this awkward position of playing pit bull and it's dragging him nowhere. Suffice it say, Edwards is not in danger of being President of the United States of America. He and Obama were actually booed. Now, I know it's a Clinton crowd. But, I'm not surprised they were booed. Definitely not a winning performance. But, not a losing one either.
Kucinich - complains that he gets no face time, and when he does, spends it talking about non issues. He takes issue with the term illegal immigrants. Well, gee Dennis say it in a commercial, man. This is your opportunity to shine. If anyone does not have the time to mince words when appearing in a debate format like this one, it's Kucinich. Right now, only Clinton, Obama, & maybe Edwards, can use valuable debate time, to voice concerns over the phrasing of words. Not Kucinich, who should be wowing the public at every turn - if he expects to get more face time. Losing Performance. Not because of what he does, but what he doesn't do with his limited time in front of the camera.
Biden. Winning Performance. He isn't going to be President. If he doesn't know it by now, he needs to fire his psychic. Or, get one if he doesn't have one. He can save himself some time. He's experienced. He's been plagued throughout his career, with "foot in mouth" disease. But, he's shown himself, knowledgeable about the issues. He comes across like he knows what he's doing, without being a know it all. I think a more important question for us, will be where will he throw his support when he bails out of the campaign? One of the few on the stage, that I believe is actually capable of doing the job.
Richardson. Winning Performance. He's the other capable candidate I believe. He also isn't in danger of becoming president. He's an excellent choice for a vice president slot, though. He says he wouldn't accept that position. I think he's either lying or playing coy, though. I think he and Biden would need the least amount of on the job training. He handles himself well in debates. You aren't going to find a lot of Richardson foul ups. I think this is because he says what he believes in. I don't believe he's pandering. He doesn't have to.
Dodd. Not a losing performance. But, not a winning one either. I'm tired of him proving he knows spanish. It impressed me the first time. It's starting to grate now. I don't believe the presidency or vice presidency is in his future. His answers aren't always crystal clear. And, because he's NOT the front runner, he really needs to do more with his limited time in front of the camera.
Fee free to disagree with me. But, that's my take.
I think the media is really picking the next president. They only need us to watch the commercials and support their sponsors.
They really don't want the American people involved in this debate. They don't think we're that bright. Why else would they continually throw Britney Spears and Paris Hilton at us? Are we supposed to believe they spent years in college learning so that they could alert us every time Britney gets into a car. Are we supposed to believe that so little news happens in the entire world that every channel can efficiently repeat and rotate the same stories all day long.
No, they tell us what they want us to know. But, they aren't telling the news. Biden doesn't have the support of any news media outlet. So, don't expect to hear much from him. And, without face time, it's really hard to get your message across, because there's no name recognition. If we don't hear your message, we have only the debates. But, how many people watch debates?
Now, perhaps the question to ask, is how do they get away with it. But, we even know the answer to that one. Because we let them.
> not "sexy". I don't mean really sexy.
You mean Al Gore sexy? ;-) Just kidding. You may be
right, he is not glamourous or part of a big famous
family or charismatic like Kennedy. To me that is a big
frickin' plus, I want someone who can perform in the
job, period. For me, it is either Biden or Dodd. All the
others, except possibly Hillary Clinton, and we all know
that 1/2 the country detests her.
To me, Clinton is like a Supreme Court nominee from
Bush. She is a divisive person. I think she can and
will do the job if she is elected, an she is my third
choice in line, but as a nod to the middle of the road
and moderation it would be nice not to have a Bush
or Clinton in the White House.
I have to agree with the media, the American people
are not that bright, and they do not care other than
to make jokes and laugh about politics. It still has
not touched most people, and those that it touches
and who scream the most are not the ones that
need to be heard.
The problem is that your people who went to
college are not the ones watching Paris or Britney,
they know the country is running according to
the accepted principles of capitalism, and their lives
are OK, so they condone the farce as far as I can
see. Face it most Americans do not even know
the names of everyone running, and only focus
on the sound bytes.
It is not even that we let them, it is done on an
unconscious basis I think. We are deluged with
symbols and psychology, and maybe that is not all
bad. The country is not all bad, and most people
just seem to want their Cable and Internet and do
not know the issues.
One of the biggest talking points from the Democrats (and indeed, in the nation) in this election cycle is the need and push for change; something different. The three Democratic front-runners are exactly that; a woman, a black man, and a fairly young white guy. These three simply ooze "different" whereas Biden and Dodd are viewed as representative of "the old and staid" despite the fact that they are nothing like this past administration.
Biden really does shine, he's just not allowed too.
"Uh.....Brett? *points to Bruce's comment* Since when did not being up for election stop the hate mongers who direct their venom at Mr. Clinton? As I recall, every time anyone mentions anything Mr. Bush has done wrong one of you Bush worshipers brings up Mr. Clinton. Also, and I have asked this question repeatedly without receiving any answer, why is it viewed as hatred to see something wrong and to comment on it? Do you really believe Mr. Bush's assertions that he's never done anything wrong in his life?"
A few honest questions deserve some honest answers, so I'll do my best from the Conservative side to answer them.
- I think that the folks that compare Mr. Bush to Clinton are doing so because of a few reasons :
1) They disliked Clinton personally because of the disgrace he heaped on the office of the President.
2) Clinton was unapologetic when literally "caught with his pants down"
3) Clinton never slinked back down after being caught with his pants down. There's a certain level of shame we expect when people are caught publicly, as Clinton was. Clinton didn't show any shame at all for his actions. No shame = no forgiveness - that's the way the American voter operates.
4) Clinton has become a popular icon for the Left of Center crowd, and no one likes to see an impeached President rewarded for bad behavior. Clinton has been.
5) When you're a two-term President, and the next guy is a two-term President, there are bound to be comparisons. That just comes with the territory.
I have never heard Mr. Bush say that "he's done nothing wrong in his whole life", Carolyn. I have heard him say repeatedly that he's not guilty of certain unfounded allegations thrown at him by political opponents.
I hope the above answers were at least a little bit enlightening.
Another point about Clinton....the witch hunt to get him started before he was ever sworn in and never abated. It didn't start with Monica, though I admit freely that what he did there was incredibly stupid. First doing it, and then simply not admitting it and moving on. And I agree with you that was arrogance on his part.
Mr. Bush has not ever come out and said he's done nothing wrong using those words. However, he has, on several occasions been asked if he would have done anything different as President if he knew then what he knows now, and his answer was always "I can't think of anything." To me and lots like me that is arrogance almost beyond comprehension given the man's record.
What I don't understand is that any time Bush makes a mistake, the far right becomes outraged and screams about people hating Bush. Wouldn't it be in line with the rationale you describe in your answer for them to be equally outraged at what Mr. Bush did and say openly it was wrong or was a mistake rather than making excuses for the man? If you expect Democrats to do that for Mr. Clinton (and many of us do) why is Mr. Bush exempt from any criticism of his performance in office?
I am not trying to pick a fight here. I am trying to understand why screw-ups are fair game if one person does them, and off limits when another person does things far worse. I admit I've never understood the far right's rabid hatred of Mr. Clinton in the first place. I do, however, understand their frustration that after years of investigations and tens of millions of dollars spent trying to get something on him, then had to settle for an impeachment involving lying about a blowjob then lose the vote on that.
Again, thanks for your civil and interesting comments. I do, btw, believe you're right in this to the extent that it involves Monica. I'm still trying to figure out where the original witch hunt started and why.
> I'd say that the reason Biden (and Dodd) aren't
> getting much play is that they are perceived as
> old school, or established politicians.
There might be something to that, it is the victory
of style, or the defeat of lack of style, over
substance in my view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4
> in the eyes of a lot of people what Mr. Clinton
> did was not an impeachable offense.
The idea that someone can be prosecuted for lying
over a fact that was not germain to what they were
testifying over is ridiculous. Clinton was testifying
about the Whitewater scandal ... so what does his
dalliance with Lewinsky have to do with that.
If a lawyer in court asks me as a witness how I am
and I say fine, it is not a crime if I am really not feeling
well when I say that, let alone a capital crime.
This was a laughable joke. While things going on in
his administration that bend and breaks laws are
ignored ... a major problem with the rule of law in my
view.
I hate to defend Bush but upon receiving so much
criticism after saying he could not think of anything that
he had done that was wrong, he did say that in retrospect
the "Bring it on" was something he wished he had no said.
The whole point is that the Republicans, and I do not mean
all Republicans, like all Muslims are not terrorists, but the
hardline, stop at nothing brand of ultra-conservative
Republicans are not objective, they are not fair, they are
incapable of objectivity, they push every chance they get
with no respect for the system we live under.
One wonders at the urgency with which they push and
the vitriol with which they attack, and who exactly is
they? This is the problem, not all Republicans are like
this, and in fact many are tired of this kind of civil war
inside the country.
To understand it one just needs to understand that
the far right intends to win and impose their dictates
on the country by any means possible including those
outside the bounds of the system.
Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
Mr. Bush has not ever come out and said he's done nothing wrong using those words. However, he has, on several occasions been asked if he would have done anything different as President if he knew then what he knows now, and his answer was always "I can't think of anything." To me and lots like me that is arrogance almost beyond comprehension given the man's record."
I was watching TV the first time Mr. Bush was asked the "would you have done anything different?" question. He looked like he was truly trying to access data from the inner core of his brain there………..I almost expected little whisps of steam to come out of his ears before he answered….lol. However, when he answered, he seemed pretty genuine. Like it or don't, he doesn't seem to be a '20/20 hindsight' kinda guy. He processes the info that he has at the time, makes a decision based on that info, then he lives with his decision. As a human being, that's about all you can do, unless you own a time machine.
As far as those who defend Mr. Bush no matter what - I don't understand that. He does things wrong (in my opinion) and should be punished politically for that. And he is. Probably too harshly because he's the President, but that's just the way it is. That's why the job is as tough as it is.
Clinton supporters who think they do no wrong are equally funny. If the Clintons could just stay with their "wolves in sheep's clothing" disguise as Centrists, they'd probably do much better.
I'm not quite sure about your "original witch hunt" hypothesis. When Clinton beat Bush Sr. in 1992, I thought the reaction was pretty mild. It was only later after Hillary became involved in health care reform did things go wacko against them. Personally, I think Hillary's actions were those of a cabinet member…………even though she wasn't one. If you'll remember, the health care industry weathered some horrible storms after Hill got involved. Many lost their jobs.
Now I know you're joking. Clinton was fighting terrorism better than President Bush? That's hilarious!
Clinton had 3 separate opportunities in the late 90's to accept Osama bin-Laden into American custody, but refused. And this is after the guy was already indicted in a NY court.
In addition, when the USS Cole was bombed in November of 2000, under Clinton's watch, there was virtually no response...........even though the identities of the bombers were discovered within just a few weeks. He sat on his hands!
I could go on and on with examples of Clinton's ineptitude in fighting this war against Islamo-fascism, but it would take up far too much space. Let's just suffice it to say that the comparisons between Mr. Bush and Clinton aren't even close.
One caused the mess, the other one has been left to clean it up.
I totally disagree with you that Clinton made the mess and Bush was left to clean it up. Had Bush wanted to "clean it up" he would have gone after Osama rather than going after Saddam. He let him go at Tora Bora by pulling the troops out of the area to go off on a wild goose chase. Also, Osama went from "public enemy No. 1" and "Wanted Dead or alive" to "I don't really think all that much about him." If that isn't dropping the ball, I'm not sure what is.
Bush blew it when he decided to go into Iraq rather than actually pursue the terrorists where he knew them to be which was in and around Afghanistan. He knew at the time that there were no terrorist cells, etc. in Iraq. He had other reasons for going in there; reasons we'll probably never know, but they had nothing whatever to do with terrorism.
It's easy to extrapolate that had this arrest occurred 9/11 possibly could have been prevented, but that's 20/20 hindsight. It's not like we knew 9/11 was in the works back in '96 and the Clinton administration just ignored it.
Same goes for the Bush administration. Nobody just let 9/11 happen (that statement will probably set some tinfoil hat people aflutter). But as long as there is politics to be played, both sides will point to errors or missed opportunities from the other to show that their hands are cleaner.
I watched in horror as Larry King asked Bill Clinton the "did you have a few chances to capture Osama?" question on the air, live. In very uncharacteristic candor, Bill took his medicine and said Yes. I think he still feels badly about this today.
The mere fact that Clinton treated the entire Osama situation like a matter for the local police just astounds me. Clinton truly did not have a grasp on the fact that this was a huge Islamic jihad, and not something for Barney Fife to mop up.
This compounded the situation immensely. And like we learned at the War College, people such as Osama and Saddam never just quit their bad behaviors............they have to be stopped from doing so. They become addicts to it.
They need a high lead diet to be cured.
On the other hand, after the Cole and 9/11 it is hard to argue that anyone didn't know the significance, yet under Mr. Bush Osama went from "wanted dead or alive" and
"public enemy number one" to "I don't really think about him that much any more." He managed to do that all in the space of a couple of years. I would argue it's really quite unfair to say that Clinton didn't do enough when by all assessments the true breadth of the situation wasn't known at that time, then turn around and give Mr. Bush a pass for deciding Osama doesn't matter any more and going off on a tangent that is costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
Osama had already been indicted by the time Sudan offered him to Clinton. Clinton was terrified of the ramifications of another possible political fiasco, since he was up to his gonads in Monica-Gate at the time.
I don't believe in the Hindsight model. I blamed Clinton way back then when he refused to act, and I left it at that. I don't howl for his blood nowadays over it. I just think he was fairly incompetent on the Foreign Policy side of things.
Then when Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole bombing, just about every military family I know, wanted him strung up.
Mr. Bush took action..............Clinton didn't. I commend Mr. Bush for doing the much harder of the two.
Mr. Bush took action, and the correct action at that, after 9/11. He went after the person responsible. He attacked Afghanistan's Taliban when they refused to give him up, though to be entirely honest I don't believe the Taliban ever had bin-Laden or could have given him up. That is besides the point, however. They said they did and they said they refuse to surrender him and had to pay for the results of their folly.
Where Mr. Bush screwed up royally was the invasion of Iraq, which had nothing whatever to do with bin-Laden or 9/11. He attacked believing the country would fall quickly (true) and then believed they would immediately rise to the occasion and implement a new government and we could leave, so he had no real occupation plan in case his fantasy didn't materialize. You always have a contingency, worst case scenario plan even if you believe you will never use it. Not to do so is inexcusable and resulted the the mess we see there now. This is Mr. Bush's failure. Had he concentrated his efforts on bin-Laden and on Afghanistan we wouldn't even be having this discussion and his poll ratings wouldn't be sinking toward single digits.
" The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=
article&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2
This was only one of the three times Osama was offered up to us under the Clinton administration, and it was in 1996.........just 2 years before he was involved with the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings. Shortly afterwards, he was indicted in the US. But of course, that was too late for Clinton to get him. Osama had already shuffled off to Afghanistan, and another friendly terrorist regime............so he could plan and implement 9/11.
I am at a loss as to how you can't see how Clinton caused 9/11 through inaction. It's a very simple dot-to-dot process here, Carolyn.
Sort of like, if you don't catch a villain like Jeffrey Dahmer, he'll keep on killing. Make sense? Clinton was the only guy who could make the capture of Osama possible.
I actually feel badly for Clinton nowadays. He couldn't see that Osama was such a bad guy. But that's because his attention was diverted. Unfortunately, you don't get a pass when you're the President, so the stigma attached to Clinton will probably remain for the rest of his life.
Then of course, the USS Cole debacle happened, and ruined it for Clinton forever. Up until that point, Clinton could have just been ruled a hapless naybob...........but not after the Cole. There, he simply did nothing.
Bruce, the biggest difference between Mr. Bush and Clinton is that one President chose to willingly sit on his hands and do nothing, while the other stepped up and did something about it.
Action vs. inaction.
Incredible, with all the money, power, arms, and goodwill that he had he and his cronies were so idealogically driven that they were more concerned with privatizing the army, extending executive power, and removing the Democrats from the "democratic" process and villianizing any dissent than they were with winning the war or even thinking very much about it ... in short they f*ed up for nearly 3 years trying to remake the whole country of Iraq in some kind of New World Order vision than winning the war and getting the oil flowing.
So my bottom line is that turning the world upside down has a few good effects that perhaps a subsequent administration has a hope to make good on, but the gigantic inconptenence, corruption and deficit spending, as well as the partisan takeover of much of the government including the Supreme Court has been a total disaster that will have to be figured out now at a very critical time in American history when we are fighting this war.
Bush has moved 1 step forward in turning up the heat in the middle east, and 2 steps back in tearing down relationship and channels worldwide that might have helped solve this. One has to wonder what his priorities were, fixing the problem or creating chaos so big businesses like Oil, security and civil engineering can insinuate themselves all over the world sucking trillions out of working people for the forseeable future.
I think the heat needed to be turned up about 4 notches in the Middle East, and I believe that was accomplished. Two totalitarian regimes, one long-standing, the other relatively new, were toppled quickly. Two constitutional governments were established among the ruins of the previous regimes. Voters in both countries came out in record numbers, to vote for their new governments. Many were killed as terrorists wanting to destroy democratic principles, attempted to intimidate the citizenry. For the most part, these terrorists were ignored. Progress, even though it's been ugly, has been miraculous.
Getting operations like Iraq and Afghanistan going deserve kudos in a world full of naysayers. I give the Bush administration mad props for moving mountains in an area of the world where the mountains would rather stay put. Change is good, especially in the Middle East.